avm19 opened a new issue, #2410:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/2410
### What happened?
Related: PR #868
Workaround: Do not use timezone-aware types.
I discovered this by seeing unexpected warnings in my Postgres logs:
```
WARNING: there is no transaction in progress
```
Note that the warning is in the database logs, not in any output of the
client.
It took me a while to reproduce, because I was looking in all the wrong
places, but eventually I realised that a timezone is to blame (I did not expect
that `adbc_driver_postgresql` treats tz-aware and tz-naive types so
differently).
<details>
<summary>Python code to reproduce</summary>
```python
import datetime
import adbc_driver_postgresql.dbapi
dt_naive = datetime.datetime.now() # TZ-naive works OK
dt_aware = datetime.datetime.now(tz=datetime.UTC) # TZ-aware causes trouble
q = "INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);"
with adbc_driver_postgresql.dbapi.connect(uri) as conn:
with conn.cursor() as cursor:
cursor.execute('DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test123;')
cursor.execute('CREATE TABLE test123 AS (SELECT 123 AS id, NOW() AS
ts);')
conn.commit() # OK
with conn.cursor() as cursor:
cursor.executemany(q, [(111, dt_naive)])
conn.commit() # OK
with conn.cursor() as cursor:
cursor.executemany(q, [(111, dt_aware)])
conn.commit() # WARNING: there is no transaction in progress
```
</details>
Here is the relevant part of the database log with my comments:
<details>
<summary>Postgres Log</summary>
```log
2025-01-05 21:36:54
UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):[unknown]@[unknown]:[5990]:LOG: connection received:
host=172.12.123.123 port=40398
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
connection authenticated: identity="postgres" method=md5
(/rdsdbdata/config/pg_hba.conf:13)
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
connection authorized: user=postgres database=postgres SSL enabled
(protocol=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, bits=256)
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: BEGIN TRANSACTION
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.117 ms
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.032 ms parse <unnamed>: DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test123
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.008 ms bind <unnamed>: DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test123
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
execute <unnamed>: DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test123
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 1.855 ms
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.119 ms parse <unnamed>: CREATE TABLE test123 AS (SELECT 123 AS id,
NOW() AS ts)
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.009 ms bind <unnamed>: CREATE TABLE test123 AS (SELECT 123 AS id,
NOW() AS ts)
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
execute <unnamed>: CREATE TABLE test123 AS (SELECT 123 AS id, NOW() AS ts)
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 2.439 ms
###### conn.commit() starts here:
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: COMMIT; BEGIN TRANSACTION
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 1.288 ms
###### cursor.executemany(q, [(111, dt_naive)]) starts here:
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.113 ms parse <unnamed>: INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.046 ms bind <unnamed>: INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);
2025-01-05 21:36:54
UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
'111', $2 = '2025-01-05 21:36:53.957838'
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
execute <unnamed>: INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);
2025-01-05 21:36:54
UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
'111', $2 = '2025-01-05 21:36:53.957838'
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.076 ms
###### conn.commit() starts here:
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: COMMIT; BEGIN TRANSACTION
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 5.405 ms
###### cursor.executemany(q, [(111, dt_aware)]) starts here:
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: SELECT current_setting('TIMEZONE')
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.181 ms
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: SET TIME ZONE 'UTC'
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.059 ms
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.040 ms parse <unnamed>: INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.033 ms bind <unnamed>: INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);
2025-01-05 21:36:54
UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
'111', $2 = '2025-01-05 21:36:53.957806'
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
execute <unnamed>: INSERT INTO test123 VALUES ($1, $2);
2025-01-05 21:36:54
UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
'111', $2 = '2025-01-05 21:36:53.957806'
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.041 ms
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: SET TIME ZONE 'UTC'
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.036 ms
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: COMMIT
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.480 ms
###### conn.commit() starts here:
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
statement: COMMIT; BEGIN TRANSACTION
2025-01-05 21:36:54
UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:WARNING: there is no
transaction in progress
2025-01-05 21:36:54 UTC:172.12.123.123(40398):postgres@postgres:[5990]:LOG:
duration: 0.052 ms
```
</details>
From the log, and also from the C code (below), we see that tz-aware
timestamps are dealt with by `SET TIME ZONE` queries under the hood. After the
prepared statement is run, the timezone setting is restored:
https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/blob/76a4d78c9556c84bf67714530397b7061d1e954a/c/driver/postgresql/bind_stream.h#L252-L262
I don't write in C and I am not familiar with this code base, so forgive me,
but I do see some **issues with this code**:
1. Is it a typo in the second repetition `UNWRAP_STATUS(reset.Execute()); `
on line 258? Shouldn't it be `UNWRAP_STATUS(commit.Execute()); ` instead? It
may seem confusing that the typo should prevent `COMMIT` from execution, while
the logs show that it _was_ executed. This is because I am using an older
version, before this refactor in PR #2187 , which introduced the typo. The typo
should be corrected anyway.
2. Why commit? My connection has `autocommit=False` (default), and I would
prefer to stay in control of my commits and have them only when I call
`conn.commit()`. Even if there are good reasons for a forced commit, the next
problem remains.
3. **Most importantly**, `conn.commit()` does `COMMIT; BEGIN TRANSACTION`,
so that any following statement is a part of transaction
([source](https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/blob/76a4d78c9556c84bf67714530397b7061d1e954a/c/driver/postgresql/connection.cc#L468-L483)).
This is deliberate and fine. What is not fine, is the bare `COMMIT` that
breaks this convention, whenever input contains a tz-aware value. As a
consequence, rollbacks become impossible, unknowingly to the user.
I think database transactions should be taken very seriously, and I wonder
if when fixing this bug, one could also audit the code to ensure that there no
lonely `COMMIT`s elsewhere? An extra `BEGIN TRANSACTION` might be not as
dangerous, but it still generates a warning in the logs.
### Stack Trace
_No response_
### How can we reproduce the bug?
_No response_
### Environment/Setup
```Python 3.11.5
adbc-driver-manager 1.1.0
adbc-driver-postgresql 1.1.0
adbc-driver-sqlite 1.1.0
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
